Post by: 6.8mmARHunter on August 14, 2013, 08:42:30 PM
I walk up to the thing, it's indeed dead. I have the transport tag in my pocket. What are the attachment requirement? Do I tie the tag around it's rear right picky claw, through it's nostrils, or crumple it up and stick in its ear? I searched through the regs and couldn't find anything. What if I end up bone'ing it out? What if I'm packing the hide and quarters out separately, should the tag stay with the hide or carcass? Should
If there is anything in the regs, could you point me to it? Any guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
sam
Post by: dreamunelk on August 14, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
Post by: JLS on August 14, 2013, 08:54:34 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 14, 2013, 09:09:23 PM
Post by: 6.8mmARHunter on August 14, 2013, 09:46:04 PM
I knew I'd seen the Tagging and Transport paragraphs before.
Post by: billythekidrock on August 14, 2013, 09:59:54 PM
Post by: Hunter mike on August 14, 2013, 10:19:09 PM
Post by: madmack76 on August 14, 2013, 10:33:27 PM
Post by: Bob33 on August 14, 2013, 10:49:14 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 15, 2013, 07:24:48 AM
1. Tag Your Big Game Immediately:
Immediately after any big game animal
has been killed, the appropriate tag of
the person who has taken the animal
must be:
••Validated: Cut out and completely
remove the month and day of kill.
Month and day must be completely
removed. A slit is not acceptable.
••Securely attached to the carcass in a
visible manner.
I would have thought, tied to the jaw and in mouth, with it taped shut so you didn't loose it would be good, apparently not though.
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2013, 08:09:56 AM
WAC 232-12-061 addresses tagging.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-061 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-061)
WAC 232-12-267 addresses transport.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-267 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-267)
If anyone can find a requirement in the WACs that the tag must be visible, I will stand corrected.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 15, 2013, 08:27:44 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on August 15, 2013, 08:31:12 AM
There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.
I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag. He said, "it has to be where I can see it"
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2013, 08:41:51 AM
Ask him to quote the WAC. I do not believe there is one.There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.
I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag. He said, "it has to be where I can see it"
Post by: Jonathan_S on August 15, 2013, 08:55:11 AM
Ask him to quote the WAC. I do not believe there is one.There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.
I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag. He said, "it has to be where I can see it"
:sry: Bob, I didn't mean that argumentatively I just meant that there is definitely a modicum of confusion or at least difference in opinions with the LEOs out there.
I was only nineteen and didn't have much of a leg to stand on with him. He also told me that I better have a good story for the doe in camp. It was an antlerless tag my Dad drew for the same unit he was patrolling that he didn't know about. :chuckle: he had to eat a little bit of crow.
Post by: pd on August 15, 2013, 09:39:33 AM
There are two pertinent WACs.
WAC 232-12-061 addresses tagging.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-061 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-061)
WAC 232-12-267 addresses transport.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-267 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-267)
If anyone can find a requirement in the WACs that the tag must be visible, I will stand corrected.
Three cheers for Bob on this one.
Post by: CedarPants on August 15, 2013, 10:33:41 AM
Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that
Post by: snowpack on August 15, 2013, 10:39:14 AM
Just out of curiosity - what purpose is served by placing the tag somewhere it's not visible?Doesn't get torn off by brush...then you get accused of hunting without a tag, or have to backtrack looking for the lost tag or if you have a hunting partner use their tag.
Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that
For bears I attach to largest portion of meat, but the meat is in the game bag with the tag near the top. All I have to do is open the bag. For antlered animals I like the clear bags and wrap up with a ton a tape. You can still see the tag through the bag but it won't get torn off during the pack out.
Post by: bankwalker on August 15, 2013, 10:42:03 AM
Just out of curiosity - what purpose is served by placing the tag somewhere it's not visible?
Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that
I would place the tag in the mouth hidden from sight if I was packing quarters out and leaving the head/hide for last trip. In case someone tries to steal my game I could call enforcement and prove that it in fact was my game.
I carry card or 2 with my name address etc for this purpose now though. I have had to walk miles in heavily hunted areas tp get my truck after shooting a deer. And its always a fear of mine someone would see me leave my kill for extended period of time.
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 15, 2013, 10:47:53 AM
Just out of curiosity - what purpose is served by placing the tag somewhere it's not visible?
Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that
I would place the tag in the mouth hidden from sight if I was packing quarters out and leaving the head/hide for last trip. In case someone tries to steal my game I could call enforcement and prove that it in fact was my game.
I carry card or 2 with my name address etc for this purpose now though. I have had to walk miles in heavily hunted areas tp get my truck after shooting a deer. And its always a fear of mine someone would see me leave my kill for extended period of time.
I know its sad, but I second this reason. Also on something like an elk kill at dusk, if you have to skin it out partially and get the rest in the morning, we always hide the tag on the animal. During combat hunting, elk modern season, this is a real concern.
Post by: CedarPants on August 15, 2013, 10:51:21 AM
Didn't mean to get off topic :sry:
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2013, 11:29:56 AM
I didn’t take it offensively at all.Ask him to quote the WAC. I do not believe there is one.There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.
I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag. He said, "it has to be where I can see it"
:sry: Bob, I didn't mean that argumentatively I just meant that there is definitely a modicum of confusion or at least difference in opinions with the LEOs out there.
I was only nineteen and didn't have much of a leg to stand on with him. He also told me that I better have a good story for the doe in camp. It was an antlerless tag my Dad drew for the same unit he was patrolling that he didn't know about. :chuckle: he had to eat a little bit of crow.
With all due respect, there are far too many WACs, RCWs, and policies for even the brightest of the brightest enforcement officer to remember each of them. Furthermore, they change from time to time. Simply put, officers can make mistakes. I like to believe the vast majority are not intentional, but regardless – they make mistakes.
If an officer asked me to make a tag visible, and I had no good reason not to, I would most likely comply. If I had a valid reason I would respectfully question the officer to cite the specific law. If I was cited I would most certainly fight it.
I don’t know where the idea that a tag must be visible came from. Perhaps it was in a WAC that changed at some point in the past. It’s interesting to see that language in the big game pamphlet. As we know, and as is freely acknowledged the pamphlets are a rewritten synopsis of actual laws, and are not necessarily complete and accurate. I can point out several things in the 2013 big game pamphlet that are not correct.
Post by: BsB on August 15, 2013, 12:07:51 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F08%2F16%2Fbevu7a9y.jpg&hash=b82d969d307a8f4d67b6d439fd259598326fa811)
"Securely attached to the carcass in a VISIBLE manner." :dunno:
I just realized blacktailsniper already stated this. Doh.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: bobcat on August 15, 2013, 12:13:41 PM
Quote
I saw and read the WAC's, so the writing in the regs has no legal authority? Just looks good on paper?
Yes, pretty much. Look on page 11. They have a "disclaimer" there. Titled "WAC Summary Information."
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2013, 12:15:22 PM
The pamphlet has no legal authority. You will not be cited for a "violation of page 79." There must be a WAC or RCW.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 15, 2013, 12:18:18 PM
"I saw and read the WAC's, so the writing in the regs has no legal authority? Just looks good on paper?"
The pamphlet has no legal authority. You will not be cited for a "violation of page 79." There must be a WAC or RCW.
True!
Post by: jackmaster on August 15, 2013, 12:20:52 PM
Post by: Mike450r on August 15, 2013, 12:21:18 PM
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2013, 12:33:30 PM
6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.
That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?
However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?) cite=77.15.460
“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”
Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.
When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.
Post by: CedarPants on August 15, 2013, 01:12:49 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 15, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
Do they define a "public highway" anywhere?
Looks like number 11 covers it:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.010 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.010)
Post by: xd2005 on August 15, 2013, 01:38:57 PM
Post by: SilkOnTheDrySide on August 15, 2013, 01:40:33 PM
Post by: 6.8mmARHunter on August 15, 2013, 02:01:32 PM
Page 78 of the Big Game pamphlet refers to “Prohibited Hunting Methods.” One of the prohibited hunting methods reads as follows:
6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.
That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?
However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?) cite=77.15.460
“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”
Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.
When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.
So, hypothetically, you could be driving along, see a bear in a clearcut off the side of the road, stop your vehicle, get out, load your weapon, then while firing from the road, harvest your bear. You could argue that your shot was not negligent. You could argue that the shot was calculated, planned, and executed with the utmost precision an safety in mind. Hence not negligent. So legally, you could shoot and kill your bear from a road. Hypothecally.
Post by: snowpack on August 15, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
That's how I'm reading it too. Like they knew the law, but decided to go a little further when they wrote the regs. Probably because they didn't want to think about how to define 'negligently'.Page 78 of the Big Game pamphlet refers to “Prohibited Hunting Methods.” One of the prohibited hunting methods reads as follows:
6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.
That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?
However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?) cite=77.15.460
“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”
Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.
When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.
So, hypothetically, you could be driving along, see a bear in a clearcut off the side of the road, stop your vehicle, get out, load your weapon, then while firing from the road, harvest your bear. You could argue that your shot was not negligent. You could argue that the shot was calculated, planned, and executed with the utmost precision an safety in mind. Hence not negligent. So legally, you could shoot and kill your bear from a road. Hypothecally.
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2013, 02:06:30 PM
Absolutely. The officer and judge would need to be convinced that not only did you shoot from, across, or along a road, but that it was done negligently.
Post by: pd on August 15, 2013, 02:20:19 PM
Page 78 of the Big Game pamphlet refers to “Prohibited Hunting Methods.” One of the prohibited hunting methods reads as follows:
6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.
That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?
However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?) cite=77.15.460
“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”
Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.
When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.
OK. Four cheers for Bob.
Post by: bankwalker on August 15, 2013, 02:26:46 PM
I'm glad we have members on this board who take the time to help clarify the laws.
Post by: 6.8mmARHunter on August 15, 2013, 02:35:57 PM
"So, hypothetically, you could be driving along, see a bear in a clearcut off the side of the road, stop your vehicle, get out, load your weapon, then while firing from the road, harvest your bear. You could argue that your shot was not negligent. You could argue that the shot was calculated, planned, and executed with the utmost precision an safety in mind. Hence not negligent. So legally, you could shoot and kill your bear from a road. Hypothecally."
Absolutely. The officer and judge would need to be convinced that not only did you shoot from, across, or along a road, but that it was done negligently.
I wouldn't want to be the test case.
Post by: BsB on August 15, 2013, 02:43:23 PM
Fixed it for you. :tup:
OK. Four BEERS for Bob.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2013, 03:09:50 PM
(burp)
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 15, 2013, 03:14:13 PM
Are logging roads "public highways?"
If you are talking about Weyco and such type logging roads, I believe that #28 on that page covers those.
Post by: CedarPants on August 15, 2013, 03:16:27 PM
Do they define a "public highway" anywhere?
Looks like number 11 covers it:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.010 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.010)
Thanks :tup:
Post by: billythekidrock on August 15, 2013, 06:23:03 PM
Are logging roads "public highways?"
On state land = yes.
on private timberland = no.
Post by: Rooster1981 on August 15, 2013, 07:37:07 PM
I have always put the tag in the ear and tapped the ear shut with electrical tape. Many times I have been checked with a animal tagged in the ear and was told thats the way they like it. :dunno: